Parade Contributing Editor Andrew Vachss has made the protection of our most vulnerable citizens his life's work. He is an attorney whose practice, for nearly four decades, has been devoted exclusively to the representation of children, many of them victims of sexual abuse. This experience has made him an outspoken advocate for the dignity and rights of children, a theme he also has pursued through his best-selling novels. This week, we ask readers to join Vachss' call-to-arms against a despicable crime that is growing at an alarming pace.

Statistics show that child pornography is the fastest-growing of all Internet businesses, estimated to bring in several billion dollars a year. But while such information may enrage or frighten us, it changes nothing. Our knowledge of cold statistics will not alter the conduct of those who take pleasure or profit in the exploitation of children. Instead, if we are to wage war, we must know our enemy. We need to know more about those who create this unspeakable "product," why they do it and the various ways it is used.

The term "pornography" may give rise to discussions about what constitutes art. It may invoke issues of free speech or censorship. But no matter how you feel about pornography in general, child pornography does not belong in that debate. No child is capable, emotionally or legally, of consenting to being photographed for sexual purposes. Thus, every image of a sexually displayed child—be it a photograph, a tape or a DVD—records both the rape of the child and an act against humanity.

Child pornography has become a business so profitable that it is no longer limited to pedophiles. Demand exceeds supply and always will. (Some pedophiles, if they had the resources, would acquire a copy of every single piece of child pornography ever produced.) The risk/gain ratio is extremely favorable. And the return on investment is extraordinary. What crime syndicate would pass up such an opportunity?

Compare production of child pornography with another syndicate crime: trafficking in cocaine. Effective production of cocaine requires control of the cultivation fields, maintenance of private armies, complex laboratory skills and equipment, smuggling expertise and many levels of bribery. Because of harsh international drug laws, moving large quantities means risking a life sentence or, in some countries, a death sentence. As a result, those in the production chain have a great incentive to inform upward if captured.

And, even when the syndicate succeeds, it must then begin all over again. Once cocaine is sold, it is gone.

In contrast, production of child pornography requires only equipment that anyone can buy at a local mall. Because much of the original product is "home-grown"—produced by the parents or caretakers of the victims and then offered for distribution to a syndicate—the risk of capture is low. And the penalties are much lower than they should be, considering both the damage done and the profit realized. Once the images are created, they can be copied forever. Even seizure of the original pictures means nothing: Images on the Internet can never be destroyed. The only things "used up" in the child pornography business are its victims.

We justify draconian sentences for drug trafficking because it "hurts our children." And it does. But no mere words could ever truly describe the daily torture of victims who were forced to participate in child pornography years ago and now, as adults, see images of themselves "performing" on the Internet. Do I believe that those who "merely collect the images" would stop if they heard that same pain? No. All pedophiles—even the ones who describe their predatory conduct as "love"—lack empathy. The pain of others is immaterial to the pursuit of their own pleasures. And for the overt sadists, such pain would only increase the value of their "collections."

I understand there are those who innocently (if unwisely) click a hyperlink received in an e-mail and find themselves looking at child pornography. That does happen. But it doesn't happen to the same individual dozens of times. Ask any investigator how many images are found on the average hard drive of a computer seized pursuant to a warrant, and "thousands" is the number you will hear most often.

Personal arousal or stimulation is certainly one reason for collecting child pornography. But there are more sinister uses. One is to desensitize potential victims. Today's children are creatures of the media. What they see in the movies must be "what other kids do," and the predatory pedophile skillfully introduces child pornography among other child-enticing "games" offered during the "grooming phase." This allows him to gradually lower the child's resistance. This is yet another reason to radically increase the penalties for simple possession of child pornography. It is not just some degenerate form of entertainment; it is a deadly weapon that creates new victims.

Beyond that, child pornography also is used by pedophiles as personal validation. Each image tells the collector that he (or she) is not a pervert but a victim, one whose sexual interests—although unaccepted by a "repressive society"—are shared by many. Treatment specialists are always telling us that pedophiles suffer from low self-esteem. The truth is that nothing raises the self-esteem of such individuals more than the certain proof that they are not alone. And such validation is never more than a mouse-click away.

Now that we know what child pornography really is, we can understand the monstrous danger it poses to children throughout the world. The question then becomes: What can we do?

First, we must raise the stakes. With significantly higher penalties—for everything from simple possession to production with intent to distribute—we will immediately accomplish two things: 1) Some purchasers and producers will be deterred, because the risk/reward paradigm will have suddenly shifted. 2) As for those who refuse to be deterred, we will be able to incapacitate them for very long periods via extensive prison sentences.

Second, we must abolish the statute of limitations, both civil and criminal, on acts involving the production of child pornography. This will preserve each victim's opportunity to sue even if his or her individual identity is not discovered until many years have passed. It will also foreclose the "Internet defense," meaning that there will be no need to prove the date on which the original sexual victimization was recorded.

Third, to further deter criminal syndicates, we must enact federal laws to allow the United States to sue on behalf of any as-yet-unidentified children depicted in seized child pornography. This will allow predators to be immediately stripped of their property and profits, which can be held in escrow until their victims are identified.

Fourth, we must recognize that child pornography is an international crime. Many of the servers that contain and distribute it are safe-housed in foreign countries. Typically, a "gateway" operation is set up to protect credit card users from discovery when they purchase child pornography from overseas merchants. But when such a Web site's defenses are broken, too often only the American participants ever see the inside of a prison or face forfeiture of their filthy profits. Since we bring economic sanctions against countries that commit human-rights violations, why should we do less when child-pornography syndicates operate with the clear complicity of their governments overseas?

We should negotiate full-cooperation treaties with all the governments with whom we do business, so that child-pornography syndicates have no protection, no matter where they are housed. We should not be misled by noble-sounding rhetoric: When foreign governments claim that this is a privacy issue, they are in fact simply protecting organized crime—and are being well paid to do so. When a U.S. investigation reveals an overseas component to a child-pornography ring, our government must demand full access to all available evidence and insist that the host country will prosecute all offenders and enforce appropriate penalties.

Finally, we must acknowledge that a war cannot be fought without resources, and then demand that our legislators commit those resources. For this war, we need more trained investigators, more computer experts, the most advanced equipment—and the federal muscle to force cooperation from other governments (while, of course, offering them the same).

Child pornography is a multi-victim crime and a multibillion-dollar business. We already know what children are "worth" to predatory pedophiles and criminal syndicates. Now is the time to show the world what they are worth to us.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. W. SCOTT FUHRMAN, Defendant.
CASE NO. 1:04-CR-59 (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, FORT WAYNE DIVISION), April 13, 2006, Decided; April 13, 2006, Filed

As is noted by the Government in its brief, child pornography is not a victimless crime. Indeed, "no child is capable, emotionally or legally, of consenting to being photographed for sexual purposes. Thus, every image of a sexually displayed child-be it a photograph, a tape or a DVD-records both the rape of the child and an act against humanity." (Gov't's Exhibit A, "Let's Fight this Terrible Crime Against Our Children," by Andrew Vachss, February 19, 2006, PARADE Magazine). Moreover, statistics clearly demonstrate that internet "child pornography is the fastest growing of all internet business, estimated to bring in several billion dollars a year." (Id.). Although Fuhrman and those writing on his behalf intimate that he was merely viewing the images and thus, he should not be punished so severely for viewing what others have created, this is a serious mischaracterization of the nature of this crime.

By his conduct, Fuhrman created and sustained the market for internet child pornography. Congress has seen fit since passage of the PROTECT ACT in 2003 to increase the guideline calculations for this type of conduct because it is impossible to distinguish between the societal [*10] harm occasioned by those creating the child pornography and those viewing it. It is a "what came first?-the chicken or the egg" proposition. Does the creation of child pornography create the market for it. Or, is it because there is a market, that distributors create the product. The point is simple, under either scenario, children, the most vulnerable and innocent members of our society are victimized. And, even a "'passive' consumer who merely receives or possesses the images directly contributes to this continuing victimization." United States v. Sherman, 268 F.3d 539, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Indeed, "one of the reasons for criminalizing the mere possession of child pornography is to create an incentive for the possessor to destroy the material, and alleviate some of these harms to the children depicted." Id.

Of course, there will always be those judges who acknowledge the real damage done by "mere possession" of child pornography ... "These are not victimless crimes, they encourage serious abuse of sometimes very young children." and still contort themselves to impose a Sweetheart Sentence:

A New York native received a 60-year prison sentence for paying a Ukrainian woman to create custom-made kiddie porn he created and dictated. New York Daily News

Andrew Picard, 18, was found to have more than 2,000 pornographic images of children as young as 2-years-old, including rape and bestiality. Picard has been given a 10 month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months. (London Daily Mail)

Alabama: A federal judge today sentenced a Florence couple to hundreds of years in prison for exploiting and sexually abusing a minor child in their custody to produce images of child pornography, announced U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance and FBI Special Agent in Charge Richard D. Schwein Jr. FBI press release

Montana: James Michael Daniels was recently sentenced to 20 years of probation for possessing child pornography after pleading guilty to two of the 32 counts he faced after his arrest in Great Falls last spring. (Great Falls Tribune)

New York: Appeals court reverses light sentence given to Queens child porn perv and molester
Judge Jack Weinstein handed Corey Reingold a scant 30-month sentence in June 2011 even though the mandatory minimum under the law was five years. (Daily News)

Virginia: Man originally charged with 1 count of producing child pornography and 3 counts of possession gets probation. Prosecutor Randy Krantz says defendant, 55, has no prior record and is "very low risk to reoffend" according to psychologist. (Lynchburg News and Advance)

Georgia: A 50-year old middle school teacher originally charged with sexually abusing a student has over a dozen disks of child pornography siezed from his home. Muscogee Superior Court Judge Doug Pullen sentences him to 12 months probation, other charges dismissed. (Columbus Ledger-Enquirer)

Massachusetts: Police say that a Catholic priest caught with 650 photos and 114 videos of child pornography also lured a child to perform sex over a webcam. Prosecutor Paul Walsh, Jr. fought for prison time, but Judge Robert Kane gave the priest eight months in a "prison" that is a converted clapboard house with cable television in the cells. Now news reports say Fernandes has been getting adult education in the facility: computer classes. (Standard-Times)

Minnesota: A 50-year old elementary school social worker has pleaded guilty to disseminating child pornography, but prosecutors have offered him a sweetheart sentence: six months in jail with work release. (Associated Press)

Florida: A 64-year old man is facing federal charges for running a child pornography website from his home, after a history for the same crime going back at least 25 years. The man pled guilty in Orange County, Florida ten years ago and was given one year in jail. (WFTV Television)

Andrew Vachss has been writing for Parade since 1985. In response to endless requests, we have collected all his past Parade articles here.

All of the above took place in 2006. Here's how the landscape looks in 2009:

Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Kentucky don't just want to put Joseph Robert Leitner in prison for years. The federal government wants his house.

Leitner, 62, pleaded guilty last week to charges that he possessed more than 30,000 images of child pornography, and he agreed to give up his home in the Chevy Chase subdivision of Lexington, court records show. A copy of the plea agreement is here.

Leitner, who was indicted last year, has been held in custody since October 2008. He pleaded guilty to one count of downloading child pornography in a case bolstered by images and computers taken from his home last year. Leitner faces between five and 20 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for October. His lawyer, Jeffrey Darling, was not immediately reached for comment on Monday.

The property forfeiture marked the first time that prosecutors in the Eastern District of Kentucky have seized a home in a child pornography investigation. The forfeiture of houses more often occurs in drug prosecutions.

"He used his house as a protective shield to allow his criminal activity to go undetected," said Kyle Edelen, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office. Prosecutors, he said, based the forfeiture decision on the number of images and the frequency of the downloads.

U.S. District Judge Karl Forester signed a preliminary judgment (.pdf) of forfeiture June 30, ordering the government to provide notice and conduct ancillary proceedings to determine whether any third parties have rights to Leitner's property. "We're not going to just rip someone from their home or leave innocent people without homes," Edelen said.

In February 2008, a defendant in the Northern District of Texas forfeited his house in a child pornography case. "We're taking the war on child exploitation very seriously and we're making it very personal. None of your property is safe if you use it to exploit children -- you can even lose your home," then-U.S. Attorney Richard Roper said in a statement at the time the defendant was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

In an interview, Roper, who is now a partner at Thompson & Knight in Dallas, called forfeiture in child pornography cases "cutting-edge theory" and urged prosecutors to use discretion. Forfeiture, Roper said, should be based on a case-by-case basis. "Just because the statute gives you the authority to forfeit property doesn't mean you must do it."

Update:"Supreme Court to decide on child porn victim restitution,"Daily News, January 20, 2014
Advocates for child pornography victims say that holding defendants liable for the entire amount of losses better reflects the ongoing harm that victims suffer each time someone views the images online. The threat of a large financial judgment, coupled with a prison term, also might deter some people from looking at the images in the first place, the advocates say.